US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Honestly I don't think it matters who wins (of the two major parties).
They're both ruled by the corporatists (big banks, Unions, Wall Street firms, Big Pharma, and other monopolies/duopolies).

Then the only thing that should matter to you then is the eventual Supreme Court nominations that either candidate will choose. Which candidate do you trust more to potentially put in place a Justice that could even the playing field? Romney or Obama? For me it has to be Obama. He may still be in cahoots with the corporation, but of the two he is the more likely to put forth a candidate for Justice that wouldn't sell the American workers into indentured servitude.

As much as I strongly disagree with the guy, thinking that he deserves to be stoned to death is pretty crazy itself

So what? Romney says that he disagrees with the guy, and that should be enough. I don't see any reason why he should be expected to completely shun and ignore someone over one difference of opinion.

That's like saying "I don't support (Insert Theme)... But I'm going to accept millions of dollars from (Guy that I disagree with but not enough to say that he's wrong or to stop accepting his money). Make no mistake I don't agree with him but if he's giving me that much money I don't care what he says!"

Seriously, there used to be a time when members of ones own party called each other out for their BS. Now it's "We have different views on the subject" and that's it. They continue on like nothing happened and nothing changes since they're still receiving the money.

It's like the "Women can shut that whole Rape Child down" thing. That guy was a monster and guess what? After he refused to back down the Republicans rallied around him because they would rather have a monster in power than a Democrat or Independent.

That's like saying "I don't support (Insert Theme)... But I'm going to accept millions of dollars from (Guy that I disagree with but not enough to say that he's wrong or to stop accepting his money). Make no mistake I don't agree with him but if he's giving me that much money I don't care what he says!"

Actually, no, that's not the same at all. Is it not possible to disagree with someone about one subject but agree with them about another?

Most of the "non-crazy" GOP republicans can disagree about the religious leanings while still agree on other fiscal matters.. I don't comprehend what intellectual problem you have. For example, I don't believe in God. The head of the government here does. We can still both agree that universal healthcare is important (Canada, yay!)

Actually, yes it is. Romney's campaign didn't even say that guy was wrong for saying such a horrible thing. All they said was "We don't agree on that matter". That basically amounts to nothing at all and enables more radicals in the party to do as they please since they know that no matter what they say or do their fellow Republicans will back them if it means beating the Democrats and Independents.

Furthermore, that mindset plagues many Republicans in power and office, the ones that disagree are in the minority and almost always keep their mouths shut due to party pressure. I refuse to be affiliated with such a horrible group that treats many of their own base as nameless statistics to keep them in power. I also can't stand anyone foolish enough to support having their rights stripped away by the very people they're supporting.

I don't believe in God and I will never support anyone that places the beliefs of a Religion over what is "equal" and "just" for the American People as a whole. Romney and his elk have made it quite clear where they stand on that matter.

Actually, no, that's not the same at all. Is it not possible to disagree with someone about one subject but agree with them about another?

You're being a little too glib on the matter. For example, If a candidate running for office in South Dakota (a generally "white" state) were to say that African Americans were inherently flawed and genetically weaker than Caucasians (and even felt the civil rights act should be repealed), but the candidate has an amazing gun rights record and firmly supported the 2nd Amendment, would it be okay for the constituents to just disavow the extraordinarily racist stance simply because the candidate supported gun rights (or a few other issues)?

When it comes down to it, these Republicans if elected will have a say (for better or worse) in all matters dealing with the human body and if they are entering office with the delusion that rape can be ignored by a woman's body if it's not "consensual" or that god ordained certain rapes (in order to create life), then how can you ever trust such candidates to ever actually look out for women's rights (let alone anyone's)? These candidates are clearly mentally handicapped in some fashion (maybe, hopefully, it is just ignorance, but more likely it is simple claptrap based on misconceived notions of that they hold toward their constituents...or worse, they actually believe their nonsense in which case they are clearly a harm to themselves and others).

You can disagree on substantive issues of policy, but when you add crazy to the mix you just end up shitting on everything and completely ruining the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willx

For example, I don't believe in God. The head of the government here does. We can still both agree that universal healthcare is important (Canada, yay!)

Neither Canada nor the US will be making any governmental decisions based purely on God or their faith. Consequently, you do not need to fear that your government will outlaw or control anything based on God's perceived Will (generally speaking).

That is not the same when it comes to putting clearly delusional men in power who have fundamental misunderstandings about life or at least human bodies. They will actually have the power to influence and control the discussion concerning these issue in D.C., and from that power they could potentially change laws based on their complete misunderstandings.

I think you're both missing something fundamental though. The election rhetoric aside, none of which I care about, answer this question: Is there a difference between what Todd Aiken said and what Richard Mourdock said? Yes or no? The answer is yes.

Todd Aiken said something that showed a fundamental lack of understanding about the human body of knowledge related to biology. Something completely out of touch with how we understand the world to be. In other words crazy. What did Richard Mourdock actually say? He said that he believed the conception of life out of that horrific event was "God's Will" or in his rephrasing "God's Love." So what, although poorly worded, was he saying? Basically "All life is a gift of god, even conceived out of such a heinous act, that life is valuable." He is simply pro-life. That's a debate that rages to this day and isn't a simple question. I know where I stand on it.

That however, my friends, is his opinion. It is an opinion I do not share. I am pro-choice and don't believe in god. Now, what about that stance (his stance, to clarify), to you is so heinous that someone cannot simply agree to disagree about?

PS: I laughed about it as hard as anyone else when I heard it and said to myself: "How ridiculous" After reading further into the story though, I'm left sad at the mudslinging and the "picking on people" that goes about in elections and politics in general. Not that I hope for a "gentleman's duel at 20 paces" or anything.. but I wish everyone in general would be more tolerant and less emotional.

That however, my friends, is his opinion. It is an opinion I do not share. I am pro-choice and don't believe in god. Now, what about that stance (his stance, to clarify), to you is so heinous that someone cannot simply agree to disagree about?

Well, for starters it's about a person being victimized, and by his law based out of religious beliefs that should have no place in government due to the separation of church and state, she'd have to continue being victimized for at least 9 months, and possibly another 18 years after that. All because he wants to press his religious beliefs on the populace, which is unconstitutional.

Honestly I don't think it matters who wins (of the two major parties).
They're both ruled by the corporatists (big banks, Unions, Wall Street firms, Big Pharma, and other monopolies/duopolies).

We the people (normal citizens/small business owners) are screwed.
Call me cynical, but I just call it like I see it.

You know what, that is most of the people in US is thinking that right now. That is the saddest thing, because if Romney does get to office, I got a list of stuff that is going to change or be gone. From Health Care to College from Gay Marriages to even stuff that actually help out the common folks, not hurt them.

My true feelings, is that everybody wants changes but they wanted it faster than what Obama is doing. Remember, that old saying that sometimes "Slow and Steady" wins the race. If the whole world would love to have a president like Obama on their side, why do we (US citizen) want him out of the office?

Well, for starters it's about a person being victimized, and by his law based out of religious beliefs that should have no place in government due to the separation of church and state, she'd have to continue being victimized for at least 9 months, and possibly another 18 years after that. All because he wants to press his religious beliefs on the populace, which is unconstitutional.

Even though I share the opinion you've expressed on the matter above, you're oversimplifying the argument with regards to it's "unconstitutional" nature. Read exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said in their ruling on Roe v. Wade and the currently informed objections to it. In fact, notable legal scholars have expressly criticized it's precedent as being "total unfounded based on the constitution." Anyways, this is veering off course now for this topic, all I would say is that I'd hope people would give others the benefit of the doubt before making conclusions -- whether in politics or not.

You know what, that is most of the people in US is thinking that right now. That is the saddest thing, because if Romney does get to office, I got a list of stuff that is going to change or be gone. From Health Care to College from Gay Marriages to even stuff that actually help out the common folks, not hurt them.

My true feelings, is that everybody wants changes but they wanted it faster than what Obama is doing. Remember, that old saying that sometimes "Slow and Steady" wins the race. If the whole world would love to have a president like Obama on their side, why do we (US citizen) want him out of the office?

Adverse to change, believe the changes are evil, racism, don't think the changes go the right way, or think the changes aren't the "American way".

^ It's directly related to the 1) Richard Mourdock conversation and 2) is a statement of how much intolerance, rhetoric and vitriol is being spewed in this political environment. People are too quick to say the words: "they're stupid"

And.. folks, if you believe TPM, and you believe Michigan falls to the Dems .. this race is over :P

That however, my friends, is his opinion. It is an opinion I do not share. I am pro-choice and don't believe in god. Now, what about that stance (his stance, to clarify), to you is so heinous that someone cannot simply agree to disagree about?

If he wants to ban abortion, so that opinion is no longer simply an opinion. Why do you even need to ask ? I thought it's obvious.

A primary reason for opposing the acquisition of abusive powers and civil liberties erosions is that they virtually always become permanent, vested not only in current leaders one may love and trust but also future officials who seem more menacing and less benign.

The Washington Post has a crucial and disturbing story this morning by Greg Miller about the concerted efforts by the Obama administration to fully institutionalize – to make officially permanent – the most extremist powers it has exercised in the name of the war on terror

I think you're both missing something fundamental though. The election rhetoric aside, none of which I care about, answer this question: Is there a difference between what Todd Aiken said and what Richard Mourdock said? Yes or no? The answer is yes.

Todd Aiken said something that showed a fundamental lack of understanding about the human body of knowledge related to biology. Something completely out of touch with how we understand the world to be. In other words crazy. What did Richard Mourdock actually say? He said that he believed the conception of life out of that horrific event was "God's Will" or in his rephrasing "God's Love." So what, although poorly worded, was he saying? Basically "All life is a gift of god, even conceived out of such a heinous act, that life is valuable." He is simply pro-life.

1) I addressed both viewpoints (Aiken's and Mourdock's) in my post. I did not lump them together, I instead argued against both. Whether Mourdock is a zealot, an idiot, or simply ignorant does not make his viewpoint any more acceptable.

2) I understand your "defense" of Mourdock's right to an opinion, but the truth of the matter is he is running for an office in which he can turn his opinion into law. Do you not see the vast power Mourdock could posses and how his stance, however well intentioned it may be, could fundamentally change women's rights? (Do you also not see how scary his slippy slope is? While he does not wish to legalize rape, he has clearly outlawed (currently morally, but if given the chance...) the women's right to be a victim in her own rape since she is merely a conduit for "God's Love").) As I said in my hypothetical, simply because a potential voter agrees on a few key issues does not excuse the extremist remarks a candidate makes (this is going back to the fact that Romney has not disavowed Mourdock); there is no justifiable way anyone can vote for this man unless they have the same opinion.

3) I have never fully blamed all Republicans for a few Republicans actions. Mourdock's words and opinions are his own and do not reflect on his party (though there are currently 5 Republican candidates that have all made similar stupid remarks concerning Rape in just a few months). The only Republican this potentially reflects badly on is Mitt Romney because he still accepts money from a man who does, no matter how he phrases it, justify rape.

Honestly I don't think it matters who wins (of the two major parties).
They're both ruled by the corporatists (big banks, Unions, Wall Street firms, Big Pharma, and other monopolies/duopolies).

We the people (normal citizens/small business owners) are screwed.
Call me cynical, but I just call it like I see it.

What you are saying is true in the sense that both are in the pocket of the corporations, but as you also know, the GOP have stronger ties to corporations than democrats do.

You are wrong in the sense that this election won't change anything. It sure will, and the consequences are far reaching.

The X factor here is the Tea party. Those extremist have been dictating the GOP agenda for 2 years. They have gone to extremes in order to beat Obama. They are also highly religious and want to do away with the separation of church and state. They are also very intolerant people.
However, if the GOP were to lose the election this would most certainly spell the end of the tea party and heads would roll in the republican party as it struggles to redefine itself. If the Romney wins then get ready for some huge changes, as winning the white house would embolden and validate the tea party tactics.

Do you think Bush was bad? Wait until a guy called Mit Romney who is amoral and willing to do anything in order to fulfill his own goals starts leading the country according the Tea party's vision.

What you are saying is true in the sense that both are in the pocket of the corporations, but as you also know, the GOP have stronger ties to corporations than democrats do.

You are wrong in the sense that this election won't change anything. It sure will, and the consequences are far reaching.

The X factor here is the Tea party. Those extremist have been dictating the GOP agenda for 2 years. They have gone to extremes in order to beat Obama. They are also highly religious and want to do away with the separation of church and state. They are also very intolerant people.
However, if the GOP were to lose the election this would most certainly spell the end of the tea party and heads would roll in the republican party as it struggles to redefine itself. If the Romney wins then get ready for some huge changes, as winning the white house would embolden and validate the tea party tactics.

Do you think Bush was bad? Wait until a guy called Mit Romney who is amoral and willing to do anything in order to fulfill his own goals starts leading the country according the Tea party's vision.

To be honest, I think that things have gotten to the point where any result (in November) will embolden the Tea Party. And I think that this partisanization going on in the Republican party (and to a much lesser extent in the Dems), is a natural process.

Sometimes it makes one wonder if all the "doom and gloom" isn't imagined. Where in the real world things shouldn't be able to go that far because of the checks and balances...as well as the political need to be reelected.

Not to say it can't happen, just that it shouldn't be able to get that far.

To be honest, I think that things have gotten to the point where any result (in November) will embolden the Tea Party. And I think that this partisanization going on in the Republican party (and to a much lesser extent in the Dems), is a natural process.

I don't think so, there might be a small chance that they will become even more vicious if they lose, which has been the GOP's strategy after the 2008 election. Although giving logical reasoning, the rest of the republican party will look at where they are standing now and how much support they have lost from women, homosexuals and minorities and how bad their chances for reelection on 2016 look that they will revolt against the tea party.

Whether the Tea Party wins or loses this upcoming election is irrelevant since their stances and opinions will be considered worth less once the minority vote becomes the majority vote in a scant few years. Republican pandering to the Tea Party will essentially disappear as they are deemed less consequential to the elections.